Harry Potter Blood Purity Extended

Harry Potter Blood Purity Extended

In the original post, I talked about magic being a recessive gene, which is true, but I did talked about the topic as if there was only a "magic" and a "not-magic" gene, or a rather basic discontinuous monohybrid cross, or there is no 0-100% magic, and there is no other genes that can influence magic.

Which was rather like this.

I hope that if you remember anything from your 9th grade Biology class, you'd remember good ol' Punnet Squares. In this case, both of the parents - the Mm on the top and left side - are descendants of someone who had magic "m" but were un-magical "M" themselves, like a Squib. Percentage-wise, if they had four children, one would have magic: the lucky "mm" child. One child, the "MM" one is pure Muggle, and none of their children could have magic at all.

I'm not going to get into the details of genetic science for you, at least not until the complex stuff.

"But wait!" You cry, remembering the first Blood Purity post. "Voldemort's parents were a witch and a Muggle!"

Yes, yes indeed. This means that for Tom Riddle Jr. to be magical, his father either had to be an "Mm" guy himself, or the magical inheritance is more complicated than this. While it is possible for Tom Riddle Sr. to be descended from a Squib, we are going to explore the possibilities of if he isn't, instead he's solid Muggle, "MM".

I'm not going to make another square, but if magic worked like the above square, Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr. children would all be unmagical, but would also all carry the magical gene. We all know that Voldemort isn't a Muggle, obviously, so how would magical inheritance have to work instead?

Technically, it could still work like this, with an "mM" or "Mm" being a Muggleborn, but not only would that mean far, far more witches and wizards than obviously exist (re: the 40 to 50 student graduating class at Hogwarts versus the many thousand Muggle graduating class in Britain), but also that Muggleborns have less magic than Pureblood "mm" witches and wizards, which I've already established isn't a thing, at least on a diagram like this.

If you need a recap, just remember that Harry, Hermione, and Voldie would all have less magic if that was the way it worked, yet clearly, they all three are very powerful.

We also should know its more complex than that anyways, since Neville is a weak wizard while Dumbledore is a very strong one, but both are Purebloods.

One way to account for differences in magical power is with a system similar to how blood types are inherited.

Blood Types have three alleles, an Ia, Ib, and i, for A-type, B-type, and O-type, respectively.

Magic could work like Ma, Mb, and m.

This is still a discontinuous monohybrid cross, as in there's a 100%, a 75%, a 50%, and a 0% and it's still one gene.

Rather like this.

"MaMa" would be a pure Muggle, or the A-Type, while "MbMb" is, I don't know, and "mm" is a pure-magical, like, presumably, Dumbledore.

Perhaps an "Mam" is someone like Voldemort, who inherited one full-Muggle and one full-witch, making him a Half-Blood, but, maybe a strong one, while "Mbm" would be someone like Neville who is still a wizard but a weak one - rather like Ron or Seamus Finnigan.

The issue here is what "MbMb" would be. And where would the parents of Muggleborn's go? Or Squibs? To pass on the gene, they'd have to magical themselves, and then Muggleborns wouldn't exist, since they would have to have a magical parents. Half-Bloods could exist, and would explain why they seem to be stronger, rather a pure Muggle with a pure wizard makes an "Mam", but in the case of a Muggle who carries "Mb" would lead to weak Half-Bloods, that so happen to be minor characters.

One idea for the "MbMb" is just a different kind of Muggle, but there still isn't a place for Squibs or Magic-carrying people.

A different idea on the magical inheritance thing is a dihybrid cross.

A Dihybrid Cross involves two different genes that affect one sort of thing. The internet examples like to use, say...

A	White Hair
a	Black Hair
B	Coarse Hair
b	Fine Hair

...but in this case...

N	Non-Magic
n	Magic
W	Weak Magic
w	Strong Magic

Look, another chart! It's almost like they're cool or something.
Anyways, "NN" or "Nn" means that they are non-magical. "nn" means they have magic. Easy, right?

"WW" means that if they have magic, it's weak magic. "Ww" means if they have magic, it's average power magic. "ww" means if they have magic, it's strong magic. Rather, magic power uses incomplete dominance, in this case.

You can get some interesting combinations out of this as well. Say that a non-magical who carries the "ww" combination for strong magic can be/is a gypsy or a fortune teller or one of those medium that connect to ghosts. A "Ww" combination on a non-magical might mean you would be naturally more empathetic or better with animals or plants or that you have some natural talent in something.

Would that mean that I carry the strong magic gene for natural talent at over-analyzing?

The good thing about this chart is that it becomes very easy for there to be Squibs and magic-carriers. In fact, I marked the chart for you. A red dot means non-magical, a purple dot means a magic-carrier - like Squibs or those mysterious parents of Hermione or Lily we never learn about -, a green dot means weak magic, and a blue dot means a strong magic carrier.

Look, I'll make another table for you, because I love you.

In a minute, because there is empty space here.

I like this idea far better than either the second one or the first one, back on the original page. The reason for this is that it accounts for natural skill levels between, say, Draco, who grew up with magic and likewise knew spells that weren't part of the curriculum, and his (probably) second cousin Harry Potter who didn't grow up with magic, was an average student, yet could scare of a horde of Dementors by 14 or defeat one of the strongest wizards in Britain by 18.

Also, here's that table.

NNWW	Weak Non-Magical	People with poor immune systems or blood diseases?
NNWw	Average Non-Magical	Average Joe, Vernon and Dudley Dursley
NnWW	Weak Non-Magical Carrier	Probably not nearly as weak as NNWW, Filch?
NnWw	Average Non-Magical Carrier	empathetics?, vets, florists; Petunia Dursley?
NNww	Strong Non-Magical	mystics, gypsies, mediums
Nnww	Strong Non-Magical Carrier	Same as NNww, some Squibs, Hermione's parents, naturally talented?
nnWW	Weak Magical	Ministry Workers
nnWw	Average Magical	Ministry Workers, Minister, some Aurors
nnww	Strong Magical	Voldemort, Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, good Seers, some Aurors

While magic could be far simpler than the Punnet Square - the chart - makes it seem, the facts don't add up as well.

There are, of course, other ways magic could be inherited, like with multiple genes, as it it is with hair color or height, and that's probably how it is, but the dihybrid cross is fairly close to how multiple genes would work in reality.

As for where the Squibs get a non-magic gene if they are supposed entirely pureblood? It's very likely that there is a Muggle somewhere in the line, but that means that the Muggle gene carried, right? And if you carry a non-magic gene, you must be non-magic, right? So that would mean that Squibs can't technically exist, unless magic is dominant or co-dominant, or, well, magic explain why Squibs exist.

That's the easy way out, but it is amusing to answer aimless questions like that. Magic. Hah!

So if magic was dominant, the numbers wouldn't work out at all, which is my primary reason for making it recessive in the first place. Numbers almost always suggest whether genes are dominant or recessive, but in the case that it is actually dominant and some form of complex circumstance leads magic to be just uncommon - this is supported by how Colin and Dennis Creevy are both Muggleborns, but also brothers, and are very unlikely to both be magic according to the above chart - I will humor you with even more delectable tables.

NNWW	Weak Magical
NNWw	Average Magical
NnWW	Weak Magical Carrier
NnWw	Average Magical Carrier
NNww	Strong Magical
Nnww	Strong Magical Carrier
nnWW	Weak Non-Magical
nnWw	Average Non-Magical
nnww	Strong Non-Magical

It's virtually identical to the previous one, but flipped, where most people are magical, and where wizards can "carry" Muggle, which would sort of put Voldemort's agenda into a new perspective, since he wants to kill a sort of byproduct of magic, or that being non-magical is a disease, of a sort. It still makes sense, except, again, for where do Muggleborns come from? If they are descended from Squibs, they must get a magic gene, somewhere, and since Muggle's can't carry magic by this table, it's a bust as well.

What about co-dominance?

Co-dominance is where two genes that are both Dominance will give and take if someone happens to have both of them. Incomplete dominance is similar, but they combine and share, in this case. An example of this is if a hamster has a black hair gene and a white hair gene, and they are both dominant, then that hamster would have white and black fur, likely in splotches, according to co-dominance, and grey fur according to incomplete dominance.

If magic worked that way..., and, back to where magic is recessive.

NNWW	Weak Non-Magical
NNWw	Average Non-Magical
NnWW	Muggleborn Parents (Weak Co/In Dominance)
NnWw	Squibs (Average Co/In Dominance)
NNww	Strong Non-Magical
Nnww	Strong Magical Carrier (Strong Co/In Dominance)
nnWW	Weak Magical
nnWw	Average Magical
nnww	Strong Magical

I'm under the assumption that if a non-magic and a magic gene collide, then the result is a Squib or a magic carrier. But due to how obviously un-magical Squibs are, there has to be something that is magical about them.

For one, they seem to be able to see magical places, since Filch works at Hogwarts, as a Squib. Perhaps Squibs themselves have a strong connection to animals, or at least cats, because both Filch and Arabella Figg have cats, and Filch talks to his cat, who can seemingly understand him.

Other theories are that they might have some sort of magical resistance or maybe they do have magic but they just can't use it, which explains the seeing-magic thing.

In other words, magic would share an incomplete dominance with non-magic, resulting in the inability to use the magic they have.

I put Squibs as magically average-ish, since there isn't indication of Squib descendants being able to see the likely obviously magical places, and also because it's more believable to say that the closer related you are to a magic family, the stronger you are magically. As for the "Strong Magical Carrier", if someone inherits enough magic, magic would probably show over the non-magic-ness allowing access to magic, but resulting in a weak witch or wizard, which would likely have a Squib as a kid.

So yeah.

Complicated.

The way magic inheritance probably works is actually similar to how canon likely shows it, rather, with, well, a bunch of gene combinations that determine magic, rather than the still singular one I've been dealing with the rest of this post.

Let's say that there is... six genes that determine whether someone does or does not have magic, still an M and an m.

MMMMMM (6 Large M's)	100% Non-Magical
MMMMMm (5 Large/1 Small M's)	-
MMMMmm (4 Large/2 Small M's)	-
MMMmmm (3 Large and Small M's)	Squibs and Similar, most likely
MMmmmm (2 Large/4 Small M's)	Weak Magical/Commonly Muggleborns
Mmmmmm (1 Large/ 5 Small M's)	Average Magical
mmmmmm (6 Small M's)	100% Magical; Strong Magical; Often Pureblood and some Half-bloods

This table, is, of course, not that complex, but I'll explain it anyways. A "typical" Muggle would likely have no, one, or two Magic genes, but more inclined towards none or a single gene. If say a fully magical person and a fully non-magical person had children, more likely, those children would be non-magical themselves, as being non-magical is still dominant, or rather, they'd be the same in strength as a Squib.

If someone's grandparents and parents were all magical, that is generally enough pure magic for that someone to be considered a pureblood, even if they aren't, technically. While this isn't directly stated, because there aren't "three-quarters bloods" just hanging around, and because there are pureblood families that aren't very "pureblood-y" - i.e. Ancient and Noble - like Crabbe and Goyle, most likely, there is reasonable support for this statement. This obviously doesn't apply to Squibs.

Of course, that's not something anyone can tell just by looking at you, but the strength of their magic is a strong indicator towards how much magical blood they have, like how Hermione is probably the same magical strength as an ideal pureblood, as is Voldemort and Harry (re: the third year Patronus, anyone?). It's very likely that those who knew often forgot about Voldemort's blood status, which makes him widely considered a pureblood, especially considering his hatred for Muggles. Snape is similar in that regard, because, remember, he joined them freely before becoming a spy.

Still skirting around the whole Snape thing.

While in this table-example, for a "Pureblood" family to have a non-magical kid, they'd have to have enough Non-Magical genes for that to work. Now, in the case of people like Dolores Umbridge who has a Squib brother, Muggle father, and full witch mother (it's on Pottermore), that non-magic that appeared in her brother is easy to find in her father.

Her mother would presumably be "mmmmmm" and her father with only one (MMMMMm) or two (MMMMmm) magical genes, enough to make Dolores Umbridge a weak witch magically and a Squib/Non-Magical brother.

While the Squibs we all know in the story - Figg and Filch don't seem to come from any notable wizarding families, Squibs would inevitably end up as an offspring to some higher status families, like someone with a mental disorder in Muggles. It likely works the same as well, with just 3 genes out of the 12 between two people being non-magical, and thus capable of a non-magical child. More likely, the total gene count that determines magic is more than 6, possibly even as much as 2- or 300, requiring maybe 150 to 250 of those genes being magical to inherit magic.

Since magic would be recessive.

This is more likely (being way more genes), since there is a scale to strength, there isn't, say, 50%, 75%, and 100% magic, that's too definitive.

If there is upwards 200 magic-determining genes, at, say, 100, you'd be a Squib, and 101 would be an extremely weak magical, so weak they likely wouldn't even go to Hogwarts, or a "1% Magical" with 200 genes being magic and 0 genes being non-magic, that would be Merlin-strength, or a "100% magical".

But doesn't this mean the Purebloods are right? That interbreeding with Muggles really is making them weaker?

Perhaps. I didn't even know this would be the result when I started writing it, not until I wrote the paragraph 2 up from here did I see where I was going.

Yes, though, it isn't right to be derogatory and prejudiced about the more-likely-to-be-weaker Muggleborns, so Draco isn't suddenly the man with all the answers or anything, but no one just makes up all the Pureblood vs. Half-blood vs. Muggleborn thing for it to become immensely widespread supposedly everywhere if the TriWizard Tournament Year is any indication if the idea didn't make sense. I know that's a bit of stretch for the trust in people's judgement, but we believe that Napoleon was short today because Napolean was 5' 6" which is short today, but he wasn't when he was alive.

It makes sense, but it might not be fully true, keep that in mind.

But this is all just a theory. A Harry Potter theory. Thanks for reading.

Shiizumi Valé, otherwise WillowEye10329 on Pottermore, giving you a lovely dose of over-analyzing. Signing off.

A Bunch of Numbers on House Population and Points

I wouldn't really know all the details of this to some obscure degree, I'm not Rowling. But Hogwarts Houses are generally evenly split, at least by the movies and by, in some degree, the books, with the first Sorting in the series, where we learn the names of Harry's fellow first years.

For the record, there are not too many of them.
Among the Hufflepuff for that year is Susan Bones, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Zacharias Smith, Hannah Abbot, and Ernie Macmillan.
For the Ravenclaws, Lisa Turpin, Mandy Brocklehurst, Terry Boot, Anthony Goldstein, Kevin Entwhistle, Michael Corner, Isobel MacDougal, Stephen Cornfoot, and Padma Patil.
For the Slytherins, Draco Malfoy, Gregory Goyle, Vincent Crabbe, Daphne Greengrass, Theodore Nott, Blaise Zabini, Pansy Parkinson, Tracey Davis, and Millicent Bullstrode.
And, of course, for the Gryffindors, Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom, Dean Thomas, Seamus Finnegan, Lavender Brown, and Parvati Patil.

For the sake of saving you some effort, that's 5 Hufflepuffs, 9 Ravenclaws, 9 Slytherins, and 8 Gryffindors in Harry's year.

I guess it's hard to find nice people?

That's a total of 31 students in Harry's year. Now, Harry was born right at the end of the war, and Voldemort fell suddenly, so there would be less people in his year and very likely an influx the year after his - Luna, Colin Creevey, and Ginny's year. We don't know any of the other years well enough to analyze the difference, but I'm going to assume that the average student population is 40 in a year, or 280 students in all of Hogwarts. Yes, 280.

That's stupid tiny. And if in 1 year, there are 40 new magical humans in Britain, then in 100 years, there are 4,000. That's um...rather pathetic. Now, there are immigrants (and emigrants), mixed in with the numbers, as well as deaths from the odd circumstance (like Basilisks, wars, accidents, disease, the TriWizard Tournament, etc. etc.) which means this number is lower than the magical people born, but the population is, hopefully, increasing.

But with only 10 people in a House...well...let's use some Slytherin student as an example. That student is likely one of five people of that sex in their year in their House. If they want to find someone near their age with similar interests, let's say two years older or younger, leaving 20 possible students in their House that they could potentially date. 80 across the four houses. If a 7 year age gap isn't a huge issue to witches and wizards, which it probably isn't, then that's 140 students of the opposite sex in all of Hogwarts to pick from, and very reasonably, that student would dislike about 3 quarters of them. Or half, if they're Hufflepuff.

While, yes, students don't have to be confined to other people who use magic, leaving them with the absurd number of people in the British Isles, which seems to be somewhere in the 50 millions - or 25 million again, for opposite gender, and then a much smaller number for people near their age.

But with this all into consideration, it's not much a wonder why magicals would marry so soon after they graduate, and why people who aren't married soon after said graduation likely won't be married period.

Really. We don't know the marriage ages for most of the characters in canon, but Harry's parents married straight out of school, while we know Neville's parents were well acquainted at least at the same time. Snape's parents married fairly young from what I can recall, and Draco's were also very likely married younger as well.

I say this to give a sort of gravity to life at Hogwarts, but also to exemplify my text topic, House Points.

I'll keep the entire house population of 7 years to an average of 80 people, just to be liberal about it.

At the end of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone), the Houses were at about...
"In fourth place, Gryffindor with 312 points, Third place, Hufflepuff with 352 points. Second place Ravenclaw with 426 points. And in first place, with 472 points, Slytherin House."

Hold back the rant. Hold back the rant. HOLD BACK THE RANT.
Dumbledore is for another time.

But I'm going to assume those numbers are fairly on par with what they should be, which means between the 250-500 points range for each house, with a difference of about 160 points between first and last, although I'll shrink that a bit to 120, due to Snape's Slytherin favoritism and subsequent Gryffindor hatred.

I'll also assume each House starts the year with some positive number of points, because I doubt the hourglasses that count and display points would be able to display negative objects, and Snape was, jokingly or not, saying he would give Gryffindor -70 points at some point. That would be 70 points below the baseline number, like, if they start the year with 100 points by default, then loosing 70 points would still be like being -70.

I guess.

If the default is 100 points, then throughout the year, the average point gain is 290.5 for each House. If the people in a House numbers 80...each student only earns 3~4 points in a year. Hmm...

The points system would be tremendously flawed if points started at zero and you couldn't, in fact, go into negative points - negative matter again -, and it seems this is the case, as Gryffindor had 0 points in Harry's 5th year, and I'm certain Gryffindor would have gone into the negatives if they could have been.

If Snape had really been joking when he said Gryffindor would go into the negative 70 points, and he probably was, vindictive as he is, then the average points would be 390.5 points per House, with a 4~5 points per student over a year number.

But, imagine that, at the very beginning of the year, you could do whatever and suffer no drawbacks in house points for your actions, if there isn't a default point value.

We know that, aside from Dumbledore's weird sudden point awarding, most points are only gained in small numbers: 1, 5, 10 points, but infractions of the rule take out more points, with 30 and 50 points being fairly stable for the rule-breaking that Harry and Co. do all the time. This all leads out to mean that, for one, Gryffindor students are probably getting points all the time for odd things to make up for all those "negative points" that are happening.

Ultimately, that means that, especially in Gryffindor, students are earning more than their 3~5 points a year, with some students earning none, and some, like Hermione, likely earning the bulk of those.

This just further proves that the points-earning shenanigans by Dumbledore in first year was horribly unfair, and I'm not going to argue the logistics of that entire situation, so shush.

But if a student only has to earn 3 to 5 points a year, then awarding points should be a much more legitimate affair than it normally is, even considering over half the students earning none of those points - forcing the rest to earn 6 to 10 points. Well, if just a right answer or some correctly done homework or something earns points, as we see in the books and movies, than some serious point loss is happening. In Gryffindor, assuming they don't earn very many points because, well, do you really expect them to, on average, get homework points?...but assuming that, they likely are where they should be with all the points with not only what Harry and Crew loose, but Neville's potion accidents, among other things.


But we know what sort of mischief Gryffindor is up to in order to lose enough points to end up at 312 while earning enough through the occasional academic and Quiddich game...what about the other houses, especially Hufflepuff, who is in 3rd place?

It doesn't really make any sense to me that Hufflepuff, earning probably more points than Gryffindor and committing less punishable acts in general could really end up at third by a decent margin. It could be that there just seems to be less Hufflepuffs, but even if there are on average, say, 50 less 'Puffs, that's well, that's less trouble they can get into.

So House Point numbers are a bit inaccurate, I'd say, but I don't really care enough to go count all the gains-losses in the books. That, and I don't actually own all the books. So sue me.

But I did read all of them, no worries.

Back to House Population for a moment.

We have seen Diagon and Knockturn Alley, so we know that a good number of magicals are employed there. Added to this are the large number of doctors - excuse me, Mediwitches and Mediwizards - at St. Mungos, the shop-owners at Hogsmeade, the British wizards and witches working abroad, whether in curse-breaking for Goblins, or on dragon reservations in Romania. Even farther are the teachers at Hogwarts, authors and writers like Lockheart or Bagshot, and the hordes and hordes of Ministry employees as Aurors, Unspeakables, shuffling paperwork, secretaries, and Department Heads, as well as the professional Quiddich players, students, housewives like Molly Weasley, and the people who don't even have jobs like Lupin likely did for quite a while...

So there are a lot of people, an awful lot more than the 4,000 I came up with earlier. Heck, even 40,000 seems too small for this, and that's 100 times more magicals flying out of Hogwarts in 100 years.

This means that I'm wrong, I'm right and magicals just do like a trillion things at once, or there are a lot, lot more witches and wizards than I thought there was in a single year.

But if there are way, way, way more witches and wizards, that lowers the point threshold per student even farther, meaning that there must be some serious trouble-making at Hogwarts or...

Or, I don't know.

I don't even know.

But think what you want to think, I just gave you the numbers.

- Shiizumi Valé; WillowEye10329, signing off.

Hogwarts House Stereotypes

I watched a video by The Carlin Brothers, and in it, one of the brothers stated that he was Sorted into Slytherin, and that he, among other things, gets people to look at him like he's evil or bad or malicious or something, despite him clearly not being so.

The point of that statement is to bring up the point of the stereotypes on the Hogwarts houses. I'll list each house, what it stands for, and what other people think of it, generally:

House	Positive Qualities (Stereotype)	Negative Qualities (Stereotype)
Gryffindor	"Daring, Nerve, and Chivalry"; bravery, strength, will	N/A
Hufflepuff	"Just, Loyal, Patient"; hardworking, kindness	Considered boring, lame, uninteresting, and/or talent-less; the left-overs
Ravenclaw	"Wise, Ready of Mind, Wit"; smart	Considered boring or know-it-all-like, friendless,
Slytherin	"Cunning"	Dark, evil, bullies, mean, unkind, selfish, etc.

This just doesn't seem equal, does it? Gryffindor is considered the "best" house by many, and while most of this is because it is the house of the main character, but also because the only characters who really share any negatives about the house are the characters we disliked for all/most of the series, like Draco or Snape. We tend to avoid negatives about the Gryffindor house, even when the flaws are glaringly obvious.

Every house has good and bad, and remember, not every person in, say, Slytherin acts the same way. Hermione, for example, is very much like a Ravenclaw, or how Neville is very much a Hufflepuff, while Harry was, supposedly, a good Slytherin, at least for a while. Therefore, even if the stereotypes were fully true, there are people who are a mix, which, by the way, would prove the stereotypes wrong by themselves.

Gryffindors are arrogant and impulsive and prideful, as Snape and Draco say. An expanded list of the positive qualities of the house would include loyalty as well, but not only does that seem entirely untrue, as Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor and betrayed his friends (while Sirius, a Slytherin raised Gryffindor, did not) and Ron didn't believe Harry hadn't entered himself into the Triwizard Tournament for most of the fourth book, despite having known each other for years by that point.

Stereotypes, by their nature, are often incorrect.

Now, of course, not to say that all stereotypes are always incorrect, obviously,

A better table for the general house qualities would look like this:

House	Positive Qualities	Negative Qualities
Gryffindor	Courage, Willful, Fun, Loyal, Chivalrous, Quick-Thinking	Impulsive, Arrogant, Prideful, Stubborn AND Gullible (Intolerance)
Hufflepuff	Fair, Kind, Friendly, Dedication, Helpful, Honest, Accepting, Forgiving	...Gullible, Easy to Take Advantage Of?
Ravenclaw	Wise, Knowledgeable, Quick-Thinking AND Strategic, Accepting, Curious	Passive, Unfriendly (?), Overly Blunt
Slytherin	Clever, Ambitious, Perceptive, Determined, Focused, Strategic	Manipulative, Dishonest, Arrogant, Prideful, Unfair, Stubborn

It's about as close as I can get. After all, we don't really know any non-Luna (who is just exceptional in all ways, really) Ravenclaws or just, like, any Hufflepuffs at all. Or not-horribly-disliked Slytherins.

For the record, by "Stubborn and Gullible" for Gryffindor, I mean that they easily fall into a set thought or belief and won't budge from that thought no matter how unreasonable it is. By "Quick-Thinking and Strategic" in Ravenclaw, I mean that they are ready to tackle a problem, and can often answer things quickly, but they are far better at planning before-hand, like they will have a battle strategy before they fight, but if it goes wrong, they often won't be able to come up with another plan quick enough, contrary to Gryffindors, who can think far faster and make short-term plans and goals.

Like levitating the troll's club in Harry's first year.

I might be biased. I am Slytherin after all, a Slytherin that is a hair's breath away from a Hat-stall as a Ravenclaw. But believing that all Slytherins are bullies like Draco (and Snape, too, who is far too aggressive a teacher, despite his "good" intentions) and that Gryffindors are all just fun-loving heroes with positive goals is stupid, honestly.

Remember how at some point, someone remarks that there wasn't a Dark Wizard (from Hogwarts) that wasn't in Slytherin? Yeah well, sorry, but uh, Peter Pettigrew was pretty bad. We don't know what House Barty Crouch Jr. was in (although probably Slytherin, judging by his determination to get out of Azkaban and then again to help Voldemort). Lucius, Narcissa, and Draco all defected from the Death Eaters as Slytherins, and Snape himself (I will write a whole debate around him) was very likely a "good guy" in terms of the war, for being a spy. On the reverse side, Dumbledore was originally a believer in Grindelwald's mantra (he still uses the man's phrase "for the greater good"), which although doesn't make him a Dark Wizard, the ideas would have been considered dark.

This is similar to the "Is Voldemort Good?" debate I put up and the one about what makes Dark Magic "Dark". I'm saying as well that a Dark Wizard was likely originally defined by a Gryffindor or a Hufflepuff, perhaps, which already lends that statement (also probably said by a Gryffindor) towards the bias side of the scale.

But, please don't judge so bad, whether Hogwarts houses or ethnicity or whatever, just...don't.

--Shiizumi Valé; WillowEye10329; signing off.